Re: Unexpected side effect of 'setopt correct'

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:36:38 -0400
"Matt Wozniski" <godlygeek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just noticed this effect of 'setopt correct'.. Is this intentional behavior?

Ish.

> ~> zsh -f
> mastermind% setopt correct
> mastermind% pid() {
> zsh: correct 'pid' to 'pic' [nyae]? %
> 
> 
> mastermind% function pid() {
                          ^^ (actually you don't want the () in this case)
> function>
> mastermind%
> 
> Is it intentional that it attempts to correct on a function
> definition?  Is it intentional that it only attempts to correct one of
> the two types of function definition?  Something about this behavior
> caught me off guard.  :)

Correction happens as the line is parsed.  In the first case, the shell
has read as far as "pid", and assumes to begin with it's a command word,
hence it applies correction.  It needs to do this early on because it
has to correct the word before it starts parsing the arguments to it.
To change this would require a lot more lookahead, or we'd have to live
with side effects like not being able to correct to special shell
constructs.

In the second case, since we've found the keyword "function", we know
the next word isn't expected to be an existing command and we can
disable spelling correction immediately,

-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/